If only they let Silver have some form of multiplayer free; the real reason I believe gamer's rejected Games for Windows Live and Xbox for Windows (gaming). So we're left with three inferior (IMO) services:

1. Steam

2. Origin

3. and now, Uplay? Seriously? Rewards? Actions? Not to mention the website was down for two days after I bought this game, when it came back up I had to use Chrome.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If only they let Silver have some form of multiplayer free; the real reason I believe gamer's rejected Games for Windows Live and Xbox for Windows (gaming). So we're left with three inferior (IMO) services:

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Microsoft does a very bad job following through on anything. If they don't knock the ball out of the park on the first swing (product launch) they'll likely stagnate and abandon the endeavor. It feels like they are heavily driven by bean counters and they look at the initial results and decide to slice off something they see as under performing. Often times, the better solution is for them to listen to the users and to adjust the service accordingly.

Launching a subscription gaming service on PC, for instance, was just a pure all around bad idea.

They need to offer a competitive service, not a PC version of Xbox Live.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I love Steam and Origin (cept for all the shovelware on Steam lately,) and am kind of indifferent to Uplay and GfWL. Uplay is imperfect but at least they keep putting forth the effort, and with GfWL it seemed like they just gave up. At least it got functional, but it was still pretty poor wrt patching or even downloading games in the first place.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Microsoft does not consider PC gaming something worth supporting.
If they did they would have the Halo (what is it now, quadrilogy? pentalogy?) in Windows store.

Origin has Crysis 3 which is reason enough to love Origin

Nothing will beat Steam in price, convenience, or crazysales

What's so bad about Steam anyways?

Does this thing even have Windows 8 games?
How do I know if a game is touch compatible?
Why does Steam insists on installing DirectX with every new game I buy?
Why is Steam client so useless at touch even in the big picture mode (and slow)?

Does this thing even have Windows 8 games?
How do I know if a game is touch compatible?
Why does Steam insists on installing DirectX with every new game I buy?
Why is Steam client so useless at touch even in the big picture mode?

Steam isn't meant for touch. Go to the Windows Store for that. DirectX and other dependencies are automatically installed as the developer sees fit.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Microsoft does not consider PC gaming something worth supporting.
If they did they would have the Halo (what is it now, quadrilogy? pentalogy?) in Windows store.

Origin has Crysis 3 which is reason enough to love Origin

Does this thing even have Windows 8 games?
How do I know if a game is touch compatible?
Why does Steam insists on installing DirectX with every new game I buy?
Why is Steam client so useless at touch even in the big picture mode (and slow)?

Gamers are not using touch yet, why would steam cater to a super niche market at the moment?

Haven't had a game yet insist on installing DX on my Win 8 install, maybe YOU need an update?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

WTF am I reading about paying for multiplayer with GFWL? I never paid a cent. But whatever. GFWL failed because Microsoft focused on Xbox and left GFWL to rot, plain and simple. Not a thing wrong with Steam. I can't find much wrong with Origin, either, except that they don't have as good or as frequent sales as Steam and it only serves up EA games. Dunno about uplay; I'd never have had more than one digital distribution platform installed if EA hadn't forced my hand with the release of ME3.

How does Steam shit on tablet users? It should install and run just fine. If your tablet can't run a game it's simply because it doesn't meet the hardware requirements. Honestly, do you expect your tablet to run Crysis? Now, if you're talking about them not supporting Windows 8 RT, that's a whole different story. Again, it's a hardware issues, but in this case the only way you're going to get anything installed on it at all, regardless of specs, is if it goes through the Windows Store.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

WTF am I reading about paying for multiplayer with GFWL? I never paid a cent. But whatever. GFWL failed because Microsoft focused on Xbox and left GFWL to rot, plain and simple. Not a thing wrong with Steam. I can't find much wrong with Origin, either, except that they don't have as good or as frequent sales as Steam and it only serves up EA games. Dunno about uplay; I'd never have had more than one digital distribution platform installed if EA hadn't forced my hand with the release of ME3.

How does Steam #### on tablet users? It should install and run just fine. If your tablet can't run a game it's simply because it doesn't meet the hardware requirements. Honestly, do you expect your tablet to run Crysis? Now, if you're talking about them not supporting Windows 8 RT, that's a whole different story. Again, it's a hardware issues, but in this case the only way you're going to get anything installed on it at all, regardless of specs, is if it goes through the Windows Store.

The initial plans as announced for GFWL included paid MP, the consumer backlash was immense as Microsoft never really made any effort to explain why this was needed or advantageous for users and PC users had never previously needed to pay for access to MP. The marketing behind it was... not very well thought out at all.

The uptake was nonexistant, and MS quietly discontinued paid multiplayer within a few months of it being started and nothing has happened with it since.

GFWL's failure was... well, it never really offered anything for users. It was poorly cludged into the games, and was always a little awkward to update. You'd install GFWL... and it'd immediately ask you to update, you'd update... and it'd want to update again. It just wasn't well thought out. And aside from XBox achievements... it offered no benefit to users.
So users got XBox achievements, but... that meant little to non-XBox users and in exchange they got the poorly maintained GFWL awkwardly bolted onto games and other minor annoyances like encrypted saves etc.

Microsoft was entirely focused on the XBox and one assumes they didn't feel there was money in supporting PC gaming, especially after the initial paid GFWL plans died so quickly. So GFWL was never much of a concern.
And hence the door was left wide open for Valve, who walzed in and quickly became the dominant force.

From there... well, unfortunately for MS gaming on PC turned out to be more profitable then they had evidently expected.

As for Steam and touch support.... eh, Steam itself has a few touch capable games and the client does have Big Picture mode which is adequate enough for touch usage, but it's obvious it's not much of a focus for them. Big Picture is primarily intended for TV gaming from a distance with a gamepad. And the basic non picture mode client sucks for touch.
I doubt Valve will ever bother focusing much on touch beyond making sure basic bare minimum support is there.
If Valve focused more on touch gaming then they might encourage touch support, and if people use touch more prominently their liable to use Metro more frequently, since it's far better for touch then the desktop. And has an abundance of apps designed first and foremost for touch.

Since MS has a defacto monopoly on all sales of Metro apps, any significant uptake on touch gaming is a disaster for Valve. They have every financial incentive to hope that touch doesn't take off on Windows, and the mouse/keyboard and/or gamepad remains the primary gaming input device.

The Steam store is incredibly profitable for them, far moreso then their actual game development business is so anything that threatens that (and touch absolutely does, since their prohibited from selling Metro apps and Metro is much more conducive to touch usage).

I'd be shocked if Valve ever did a thing on WinRT or paid much more then lip service to the idea of making Steam any better for touch then it already is. No benefit for them in helping touch gaming on Windows.

For Microsoft, I don't think they make much effort on desktop gaming going forward. They have XBox as the primary focus, and their probably far more concerned with competing with Apple/Google for touch gaming on phone/tablet then trying to budge Steam from their position. Steam is too firmly entrenched, too popular, and Microsoft's own reputation too poor after the GFWL debacle for that to make sense from them right now. Besides, a more successful XBox can draw gamers away from gaming on the desktop and more Metro uptake could do so as well. Both of which are more profitable for them anyways as they get money from every sale of a game on Metro/XBox, something which will never be true on desktop. The ideal outcome for them at this point is probably to simply hope they can marginalize desktop gaming, giving it just enough support to ward off any threat from OpenGL (cross platform API, and hence something MS needs to discourage adoption of as much as possible as it would ease porting to non MS OS's) and Linux/Steam machines/OSX etc from taking desktop gaming away from Windows.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Microsoft was entirely focused on the XBox and one assumes they didn't feel there was money in supporting PC gaming, especially after the initial paid GFWL plans died so quickly. So GFWL was never much of a concern.
And hence the door was left wide open for Valve, who walzed in and quickly became the dominant force.

From there... well, unfortunately for MS gaming on PC turned out to be more profitable then they had evidently expected.

Valve was already a giant in the industry and the de facto outlet for digital distribution at that point. MS didn't just let Valve get big by failing at GFWL. All GFWL did was make some of the games (even those available on Steam) unplayable when the service wasn't working right. Other than that I don't particularly disagree with anything else you said.

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

- You know nothing about software. Any game you download or install will install DirectX, not just Steam. Games are built around a specific DirectX version which can differ in performance, features, bugs, etc from version to version. Therefore in order for the game (this isn't restricted to Steam) to work correctly as the developer coded and tested, they distribute the correct version of DirectX with the game.

While I don't agree with him in general, no Windows Store game will install ANY runtimes.

One major plus, whatever you think of the rest of it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

As well, I don't believe the guy who makes most of his money off Windows users despises Windows, he just doesn't appreciate the direction it's heading in. I don't look forward to the possibility where Microsoft requires App Store publication to distribute on Windows 10 Cloud Edition, however slim a chance that may be.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mandatory on-line bloat-ware sucks GOG have the right idea. No bloatware to install just like the good old days.

Oh please. Don't even mention that place. They have backtracked on every 'ideology' that they had, pooping on their customers, leaving only the DRM-free zealots as their customers. Their packages are full of piss, bloating your system needlessly.

Maybe you should open up their installers to see that they install dependencies the games don't even freaking need.

As for Steam? Nothing wrong with it at all. Rock solid. Great service, great price. :)

Please discuss topics respectfully. Attempts to bait others into flamewars will not be tolerated. The use of "fanboy" (or any similar derogatory term) when used against a specific member or group of members will be considered flame-bait and/or a personal attack. You also may not join a discussion for the purpose of destroying it by making lame and unhelpful comments. Such people will be dealt with accordingly. In summary, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If only they let Silver have some form of multiplayer free; the real reason I believe gamer's rejected Games for Windows Live and Xbox for Windows (gaming). So we're left with three inferior (IMO) services:

1. Steam

2. Origin

3. and now, Uplay? Seriously? Rewards? Actions? Not to mention the website was down for two days after I bought this game, when it came back up I had to use Chrome.

Why couldn't they just get it right.

Since you clearly seem to think that you know better than the companies you slammed, I challenge you to release a game platform/service and do better than those companies have done. Competition within an industry usually leads to better products, so if you know better than Microsoft, Valve, EA, and Ubisoft, excellent! So please, show us what you can come up with and impress us! :) Eagerly looking forward to seeing what sort of design and service you will release.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Uplay ruins my Steam Big Picture Mode experience by opening up & stealing focus when the game is closed. If left to run in the background after, it stops the next Ubisoft game from automatically launching from Steam.